E449 
.F962 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




0DDD17Hb=]47 















,4q 






•^Ao< 
























H°«, 




V V.i^* .'^»^'« %,^^ Z^-' 



"% 



: .v^-s. 







••."Vo-^- :: 






'"• .* 




I*" .' 



O. » , . 



V' .»iiiL'. <5 




.... "*; 






I^" .<•"•.-*. 








4> c«V* ''^ 




.^"^ . 






«4q. 



lO'^ 



'-•*\#' 



. .^""^^ 







^^ /Ji^\ \..^^^ :Mm^ %/ 






9 



.S^Cr 



? >^ ^^ -.^i^/.^^^^X 






^^ '^^ 




•'-• -^ 



. ,^^ ^'^i/i\ ^^ ^^ y^^^v ^^^ .^ 




': & 



CHRISTIANITY AND SLAVERY: 



/cy 



A REVIEW OF 



DOCTORS FULLER AND WAYLAND, 



DOMESTIC SLAVERY. 



WILLIAM HAGUE 



. BOSTON: 
GOULD, KENDALL & LINCOLN 

59 WASHINGTON STEEET. 

1847. 



CHRISTIANITY AND SLAVERY 



REVIEW 



CORRESPONDENCE 



RICHARD FULLER, D.D. 

OP BEAUFORT, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND 



n^ 



FRANCIS WAYLAXD, D.D. 

OF PROVIDE XCE, RHODE ISLAND. 

,5 



DOMESTIC SLAVERY, CONSIDERED AS A SCRIPTURAL 
INSTITUTION. 



BY 

WILLIAM HAGUE 



^ BOSTON: 

GOULD, KENDALL, & LINCOLN, 

59 Washikgtox Street. 

1847, 



t. 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1847, 
Bsr GOULD, KENDALL, AND LINCOLN, 
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of 
Massachusetts. 



boston: 
Printed by S. N. Dickinson & Co. 
52 Washington Street. 



oi PREFACE. 



More than a year had elapsed after the publication of 
the work containing a correspondence between the Kev. 
Drs. Fuller and Watland, and entitled, " Domestic 
Slavery, considered as a Scriptural Institution," before the 
author of the following pages had any thought of writing 
a review of the controversy. 

Having long been a sincere admirer of Dr. Wayland as 
a writer, a philosopher, and a teacher, he could not but re- 
gret the more deeply, on that account, the position taken 
by him, as to the manner in which primitive Christianity 
treated slavery ; but then, he had no doubt that some of 
his brethren more immediately connected with the periodi- 
cal press would do justice to that main part of the dis- 
cussion. No such review, however, has appeared. 

Some time since, at a social meeting of the Boston 
Conference of IMinisters, the writer was led to express his 
disappointment as to this matter, and to state his view 
of the scriptural argument. He was appointed by the 



4 PREFACE. 

Conference to prepare an article on the subject, to be 
read at a succeeding meeting. This was done, and the 
publication of the following Eeview was called for by a 
unanimous vote. In compliance with the wishes of his 
brethren, therefore, the author commits it to the press, 
under the full belief, that if its doctrine be true, the eifect 
will be good ; and, on the other hand, that if its doctiine 
be erroneous, the error will be made manifest, and that 
some few, at least, will become wiser by the discovery. 
Boston, March 24, 1847. 



CHRISTIANITY AND SLAVERY. 



Domestic Slavery, considered as a Scriptural Institution. 
In a Correspondence between the Rev. Richard Ful- 
ler, D.D., of Beaufort, S. C, and the Rev. Erancis 
Watla>'I), D.D., of Providence, R. I. New York : 
Lewis Colby. Boston : Gould, Kendall & Lincoln. 

We have before us a remarkable book. In 
the lapse of ages, it will probably be regarded as 
an instructive fact in the history of Christian 
civilization, that in the nineteenth century, in the 
Republic of North America, — famed through 
the world as the asylum of the oppressed and the 
home of liberty, — two Christian ministers, distin- 
guished for piety and learning, united in the 
common work of sending the gospel to the Pagan 
nations, should have felt themselves called upon 
to engage in an earnest discussion of the ques- 
tion. Whether Christianity sanctions slavery ; or 
whether the continuance of that relation between 
master and slave, which involves the acknow- 
ledgment of a right on the part of one man to 
hold the body and mind of another man as pro- 
perty, is compatible with the principles of Christ- 
ianity, — with the letter or the spirit of its law ? 
Nor will the extraordinary character of this 
event be at all diminished by the consideration, 
that both of the disputants belonged to the denomi- 
nation of Baptists, who had been often known in 
the world as the advocates of religious liberty, — 
1# 



b CHRISTIANITY 

asserters of tlie inalienable rights of the human 
soul ; who, in the darkest ages of Romish ty- 
ranny, declared with a martyr-spirit, before kings 
and magistrates, that one fundamental doctrine of 
the new dispensation, " that conscience should be 
free, and all men be permitted to worship God 
as they are persuaded that he requires ; " and 
who, in different centuries, have been the perse- 
cuted chamjDions of the great truth, that the Bi- 
ble alone is the binding rule of religious faith, — 
'that to its possession every man has a right, as 
by it every man will be judged. 

Yet the volume before us furnishes proof that 
such a fact has transpired ; that, after all that 
has been written, even by avowed infidels, in 
praise of Christianity, for its effects on the social 
condition of man ; after all that has been done to 
elevate the poor and the oppressed ; after all that 
it has taught respecting the common origin and 
the common redemption of the race ; after all the 
prophecies which it has held forth, through many 
centuries, touching the design of God that man- 
kind shall form a common brotherhood ; after all 
the evidence which theologians have urged in 
proof of its being a divine revelation, drawn from 
its influence on the abolition of slavery, — it is still 
boldly asserted by a Christian minister, that the 
essential principles of the slave-system itself 
Christianity does not reprobate, but that a man 
may claim to be by right the sovereign lord and 
owner of his fellow-man, and yet to be his brother 
in Christ, and faithful in the discharge of all the 
duties which are enjoined by " the new com- 
mandment." Such is the position of Dr. Fuller ; 
a position which we aver to be built on the sand, 
to have no foundation in the teachings of the 



AND SLAVERY. 7 

New Testament ; a position such, that, if it were 
true, would show that the " old commandment " 
of Judaism, which abolished slavery, was better 
than the new commandment of Christianity, 
which allows it; would show that Christianity 
was not fit to win its way through all the tribes 
of men, as a universal religion ; would show, in 
spite of all its pretensions to miraculous evi- 
dence, that as yet the Messiah of ancient 
PROPHECY, the Messiah of man, the Deliverer 
of the oppressed, the Desire of nations, the 
jDreacher of " liberty to the captive," has not 
come ; and that, with the Jew, we must take our 
place of lowly waiting for the " Consolation of 
Israel," and the Promised seed in whom " all the 
families of the earth " are to be blessed. 

Eloquent as is Dr. Fuller in argument and 
appeal, fervent as is the religious spirit which he 
breathes, earnest though he is as a preacher of 
pardon to the sinner, yet, by advocating such a 
doctrine of slavery as an element of Christianity, 
he has done greater disservice to the cause of 
religion and humanity, than could possibly be 
achieved by all the traffickers of human flesh 
whom the laws of Christian nations now con- 
demn as pirates. We say this in sorrow, not in 
anger ; for to express one's deep, calm, solemn 
conviction of a terrible truth, is not at war with 
the law of kindness. The actual dealers of slaves, 
of whom we speak, avow their profession to be that 
of rapacity ; their motive to be the love, of gain ; 
and it is impossible for them to corrupt public 
sentiment, as may the Christian teacher. They 
commit a great sin ; but to misrepresent Christ- 
ianity on this subject is to take away the remedy 
for sin. They bring thousands of their fellow- 



8 CURISTIANITY 

creatures into bondage ; but to make men believe 
that Christianity sanctions a system of bondage 
which thus begins, is to cut the sinew of all the 
moral power in the world which can destroy 
that system. They can affect the opinions of 
society but little, because they are abhorred as 
the enemies of their race ; but the minister of 
religion is revered as the interpreter of the di- 
vine will. They can do nothing to erect the 
bulwarks of the law around their trade in men, 
and around the markets whose demands they sup- 
ply ; but he does very much to rear a legal 
defence around a scheme of oppression, and to 
perpetuate a social wrong on earth, " which hell 
itself might shrink to own." What though it be 
said that in him God may account it as an error 
of judgment, and not a sin of the heart ? Be it 
so ; but charity to the man must not conciliate 
us to his error. We must still declare it to be 
an error ; and, with the New Testament in our 
hands, must say to the most amiable of men, 
" Though you, or an angel from heaven," preach 
this doctrine as a part of Christ's gospel, we 
pronounce the sentiment to be wicked, inhuman, 
antichristian, and " accursed." 

In speaking thus, we are far from denouncing, 
indiscriminately, all those who stand in the legal 
relation of slave-holders, as unworthy of being 
regarded as Christian brethren ; for a man may 
hold this relation, in a legal sense, against his 
own consent. He may deem himself the victim 
of misfortune ; he may feel bound to avail him- 
self of his legal power, for the protection of his 
brethren ; and especially he may, before God, as 
a Christian man, abjure all right and title to his 
fellow-men as property. Such a man, though 



AND SLAVERY. U 

nominally master of a thousand slaves, is more 
truly a philanthropist, and more worthy the fel- 
lowship of the universal church, than is the 
Northern Christian who never saw a slave, and 
still declares that Christianity sanctions slavery. 
The former is a slaveholder in name, but not in 
truth and in spirit ; the latter is called a non- 
slaveholder, but a change of residence would 
make him an owner of men and women, and he 
is now a slaveholder in principle, in feeling, and 
in guiltiness. The author of. the Sermon on the 
Mount assures us, that God judges men, not 
merely according to their overt acts, but accord- 
ing to the intents of their hearts, — the objects of 
their approval or abhorrence. 

Hence we have been deeply interested in the 
argument contained in these letters, conducted 
by a leading writer of the South and another of 
the North. Not being of those who would say, 
" This discussion belongs to the realm of abstrac- 
tions ; it is better to let it alone, and to deal only 
with facts ; " we deem the discussion itself as a 
fact of the highest moment. For ourselves, we 
have not been aware, till recently, how exten- 
sively the opinion defended by Dr. Fuller pre- 
vails among Southern Christians, — how far they 
have departed from the purer doctrines of their 
fathers. We supposed that, to a wider extent 
than seems now to be the case, they had agreed 
with us in believing that Christianity entirely con- 
demns the slave system ; and that in proportion 
as their influence in the state was increasing, the 
day of emancipation was hastening on. We had 
often thought of them, as lacking a proper degree 
of zeal in the work ; as being timid and tardy, 
and too subservient to the schemes of worldly 



10 CHRISTIANITY 

politicians ; but we had never believed them so 
generally to have embraced a corrupt doctrine, 
to have perverted the high principles of Christ- 
ianity, and to have been pressing into the support 
of slavery a religion which came into the world 
" to comfort the broken-hearted, to lift up those 
who were bowed down, to break every yoke, and 
let the oppressed go free." 

While there are many things in these letters 
incidentally thrown out on both sides, which may 
be worthy of notice at some time, we wish now 
to consider the main question proposed, and the 
way in which it is treated. 

The main question is, Does Christianity sanc- 
tion slavery ? Dr. Fuller asserts the affirmative 
in the clearest terms. He says : " I find my 
Bible condemning the abuses of slavery, but per- 
mitting the system itself." Page 4. 

" The matter stands thus : the Bible did au- 
thorize some sort of slavery ; if now the abuses 
admitted and deplored by me be essentials of all 
slavery, then the Bible did allow those abuses." 
Page 10. 

" Slavery was everywhere a part of the so- 
cial organization of the earth ; and slaves and 
their masters were members together of the 
churches ; and minute instructions are given to 
each as to their duties, without even an insinua- 
tion that it was the duty of masters to emanci- 
pate. Now I ask, could this possibly be so, if slav- 
ery were a ' heinous sin ' ? No ! every candid 
man will answer no I " Page 12 

" I put it to any one whether the precepts to 
masters, enjoining of course their whole duty, 
and not requiring, not exhorting them to emanci- 
pate their slaves, are not conclusive proof that 



AND SLAVERY. 11 

the apostles did not consider (and as a New Tes- 
tament precept is for all ages, that no one is now 
justified in denouncing) slave-holding as a sin." 
Page 194. 

From these citations it is evident, that the ar- 
gument of Dr. Fuller, as to the teaching of the 
New Testament, rests on two points : 

1. The fact that the relation of master and 
slave was recognized throughout the civilized 
world, by the law of the Roman empire. 

2. The silence of the New Testament, as to 
the duty of dissolving that relation. 

This argument has respect, necessarily, to the 
slave system recognized by the Roman law, 
which was then so extensively supreme, because 
there is no evidence that our Saviour or the 
apostles ever came in contact with slavery under 
the Jewish law. Among the people of Pales- 
tine, involuntary servitude had been brought to 
an end, hundreds of years before the Christian 
era, by the natural operation of the code of Mo- 
ses. Every slave bought of the heathen received 
the offer of freedom at the end of every seventh 
year, if he were a Jewish proselyte ; and whether 
he were a Jewish proselyte or not, the jubilee 
trumpet sounded forth the decree of liberty at 
the close of every half century. The passage 
quoted by Dr. Fuller, from the xxv. chapter 
of Leviticus, which forbids the purchase of bond- 
men from any except the heathen and strangers, 
saying : " Of them shall ye buy bondmen and 
bondmaids, and ye shall take them as an inherit- 
ance for your children after you, to inherit them 
for a possession ; they shall be your bondmen 
for ever ; "* must be understood, in consistency 

* Verse 46. 



12 CHRISTIANITY 

with the law of the jubilee, which had been laid 
down in a preceding part of that same chapter,! 
which says : " Thou shalt cause the trumpet of 
the jubilee to sound, on the tenth day of the 
seventh month, in the day of atonement shall ye 
make the trumpet sound throughout all your 
land ; and ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and 
proclaim liberty throughout all the land, unto all 
THE INHABITANTS THEREOF : it shall be a jubi- 
lee unto you : and ye shall return every man 
unto his possession, and every man unto his fam- 
ily."* Such was the law of jubilee ; limiting the 
sales of men, as it did the sales of land, whereof 
it said : " According to the multitude of years 
after the jubilee, thou shalt buy of thy neighbor ; 
according to the multitude "of years thou shalt 
increase the price thereof, and according to the 
fewness of years thou shalt diminish the price of 
it:" when, therefore, another law enacts that 
bondmen shall be purchased of the children of 
the heathen, instead of the children of Israel, it 
must be understood that the purchase is modified 
by the previous law, and that the meaning of the 
latter statute is not the entail of perpetual slav- 
ery on any class, but simply the confining of the 
Jews in the purchase of servants, always and for 
ever, to the children of the heathen. 

If there were any doubt on this point, our 
interpretation of the meaning of the law would 
be confirmed by considering the fact, that the 
inspired prophets treated the continuance of sla- 
very as inconsistent with the spirit of the Mosaic 
precepts. In saying this, however, we do not 
mean to intimate that they ever had occasion to 
denounce any kind of oppression possessing the 

* Verses 9, 10. 



AND SLAVERY. 13 

character of American slavery ; for nothing like 
that could have existed a single day in Palestine 
after the entrance of the Israelites. American 
slavery originated in kidnapping men and women 
from Africa ; but this was the only kind of theft 
which the law of Moses made a capital crime. 
" He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if 
he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put 
to death" (Ex. xxi. 16). The man-steal er, and 
the man-seller, and the slaveholder, were alike 
liable to capital punishment. The Mosaic law 
would have always prevented the slavery of the 
United States, and would destroy it instantly 
now, if put in operation. In Palestine, war, 
debt, poverty, and voluntary contract, originated, 
at different periods, a servitude which was tem- 
porary, the periodical abolition of which was 
provided for by law. Against this abolition, ava- 
rice would naturally revolt, and seek to evade 
the law for the sake of gain. On this point the 
Prophet Isaiah lifted up his voice like a trumpet, 
instead of treating it as a subject too delicate to 
be mentioned, "cried aloud and spared not," 
saying, " Behold, ye fast for strife, and debate, 
and to smite with the fist of wickedness. Is not 
this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the 
bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, 
and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye 
break every yohe'^^^^ If the churches of the 
South should make proclamation of a fast like 
this, who would doubt that it involved the eman- 
cipation of the slave, and that this would be a 
fast most acceptable to God ? 

Similar in spirit is the language of the 

* Is. Iviii. 6. 



14 CHRISTIANITY 

Prophet Jeremiah in regard to an effort on the 
part of the covetous rulers of that day, to renew 
the bondage of the Hebrew servants after they 
had been released. See the xxxivth chapter, 
from the 12th verse onward. "Then the word 
of the Lord came to Jeremiah from the Lord, 
saying, Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, 
I made a covenant with your fathers in the day 
that I brought them forth out of the land of 
Egypt, out of the house of bondmen, saying. At 
the end of seven years let ye go every man his 
brother, a Hebrew who hath been sold unto 
thee ; and when he hath served thee six years, 
thou shalt let him go free from thee ; but your 
fathers hearkened not unto me, neither inclined 
their ear. And ye were now turned and had 
done right in my sight in proclaiming liberty 
every man to his neighbor, and ye had made a 
covenant before me in the house which is called 
by my name. But ye turned and polluted my 
name, and caused every man his servant and 
every man his handmaid, whom he had set at 
liberty at their pleasure, to return and brought 
them into subjection unto you, to be unto you 
for servants and for handmaids. Therefore thus 
saith the Lord : Ye have not hearkened unto me 
in proclaiming liberty every one to his brother 
and every man to his neighbor: behold, I pro- 
claim a liberty for you, saith the Lord, to the 
sword, and to the pestilence, and the famine, and 
I will make you to be removed into all the 
kingdoms of the earth, and I will give the men 
that have transgressed my covenant, into the 
hands of their enemies, and into the hand of 
them that seek their life, and their dead bodies 
shall be meat unto the fowls of heaven and unto 
the beasts of the earth." And thus it was. Je- 



AND SLAVERY. 15 

rusalem was plundered and burnt, and the Baby- 
lonish captivity made short work with the rem- 
nants of Jewish slavery, which had resisted the 
spirit of the Mosaic institutions. It is with good 
reason, therefore, that Mr. Barnes, in his work 
on slavery, reaches the conclusion, that " slavery 
altogether ceased in the land of Palestine," and 
asks, " On what evidence would a man rely to 
prove that slavery existed at all in that land in 
the time of the later prophets, of the Maccabees, 
or when the Saviour appeared? There are 
abundant proofs that it existed in Greece and in 
Rome ; but what is the evidence that it existed 
in Judea ? So far as I have been able to ascer- 
tain, there are no declarations that it did, to be 
found in the canonical books of the Old Testa- 
ment, or in Josephus. There are no allusions to 
laws or customs which imply that it was preva 
lent. There are no facts, no coins or medals, 
which suppose it." Page 226. 

Corroborative of this position is the fact, that 
the pictures of life and manners contained in the 
four gospels are not in harmony with the suppo- 
sition of the existence of slavery among the Jews. 
In the parable of the prodigal son, which deline- 
ates the condition of a rich land-holder, the term 
to denote servants is ^ladioi, from /maOog, a re- 
ward, and is properly rendered, hired servants. 
This word could not be applied to a slave. In 
the parable of the shepherd, in John x. the word 
fjiodono;, from the same root, is used, and is trans- 
lated " hireling." The same word is employed 
for the servants of the fishermen, in the beginning 
of Mark's gospel. There is not furnished to us 
in the New Testament, or any contemporary his- 
tory, the least vestige of a reason for believing 



16 CHRISTIANITY 

that our Saviour or the apostles ever came in 
contact with slavery in their native country. 

If this be so, there is very good reason why no 
instance can be cited from the gospel, of our 
Lord's rebuking the sin of slavery by giving a 
command enjoining emancipation. He uttered 
precepts adverse to all sin and all systems of 
wrong, but rebuked only the specific evils which 
fell under his notice. Hence we read nothing of 
his condemning the caste of India, the sports of 
Roman gladiators, or the vices of the theatre, 
which were censured even by the Pagan moral- 
ists themselves. No argument, therefore, can be 
drawn in favor of slavery from the lack of any 
specific rebuke of it in the teaching of our Lord. 
In his day, the Jewish law, instead of sanctioning 
any form of slavery, had already extirpated it 
from the land. 

Important as is this distinction between the 
social state of Judea and of the Gentile world, 
between the operation of the Jewish and of the 
Roman law, it is altogether overlooked by Dr. 
Fuller, and it does not appear that Dr. Wayland 
has given to this point any particular attention. 
Its bearing, however, on the main question, is 
direct and momentous. 

We now revert to the position of Dr. Fuller, 
that the Roman law established slavery ; that the 
scripture addresses those who held the relation of 
master and slave, and is silent as to the duty of 
emancipation. To this assumption Dr. Wayland 
readily concedes, remarking, "I think it must be 
evident that the precepts of the New Testament 
furnish no justification of slavery, whether they be 
considered either absolutely, or in relation to the 
usage of the Roman empire at the time of Christ. 



AND SLAVERY. 17 

All that can justly be said, seems to me to be 
this : the New Testament contains no precept pro- 
hibitory of slavery. This must, I think, be 
granted ; but this is all." Page 89. 

The mode in which the new dispensation is 
supposed to have borne upon the slave-system is 
thus expressed by Dr. Wayland : " By teaching 
the master his own accountability ; by instilling 
into his mind the mild and humanizing truths 
of Christianity ; by showing him the folly of sen- 
suality and luxury, and the happiness derived 
from industry, frugality, and benevolence, it 
would prepare him, of his own accord, to liberate 
his slave, and to use all his influence toward the 
abolition of those laws by which slavery was 
maintained. By teaching the slave his value and 
his responsibility as a man, and subjecting his 
passions and appetites to the laws of Christianity, 
and thus raising him to his true rank as an intel- 
lectual and moral being, it would prepare him for 
the freedom to which he was entitled, and render 
the liberty which it conferred a blessing to him , 
as well as to the State of which he now, for the 
first time, formed a part." Page 100. But this 
statement of the case, it appears to us, falls far 
short of the truth, and grants a great deal too 
much ; it involves a concession, which gives to 
the scriptural argument of his opponent an ap- 
pearance of strength which it does not really 
possess. It is yielding to the advocate of slavery 
an advantage, which, in Dr. Fuller's hands, has 
been made to take on the aspect of a triumph. 
All the world confess that Dr. Wayland is an 
elegant writer and a strong reasoner : but the 
strongest reasoner cannot create truth ; the high- 
est result that he can achieve, in a discussion like 
2* 



18 CHRISTIANITY 

this, is to use effectively the elements of truth and 
power with which reason and revelation have 
furnished him. But after such a concession as 
this, we cannot conceive it to be within the scope 
of the human intellect to impart to the scriptural 
argument against slavery an appearance of great 
strength. To give it force and poignancy, to 
direct it with quickening and commanding energy 
to the conscience of the slaveholder, is impossible. 
Hence, when Dr. "Wayland is borne along by the 
course of his reasoning within the realm of philos- 
ophy, or utters in our ears the appeals of a Chris- 
tian philanthropy, our hearts answer to him ; we 
feel the potent spell of " thoughts that breathe 
and words that burn," and bow ourselves with 
reverence before the majesty of truth. But when 
he speaks as an interpreter of the Bible, on this 
subject, seeking to give voice to the teachings of 
Jesus, he seems to have been " shorn of the locks 
of his strength," and to appear before us as 
another man. What he says is well said, but the 
moral effect is weak. The utterance of God's 
revelation is feeble and tremulous, compared with 
the clear, bold, and awful propositions of philoso- 
phy. "The mind of Christ," on a practical 
matter, of the deepest interest to humanity, 
for all time, is made obscure to the view of an 
earnest inquirer ; and though our Lord is seen 
to be, in fact, befriending the right side, yet he 
speaks to us " as the scribes," and not " as one 
having authority." Who can avoid such an im- 
pression as this, on perceiving that the reply to 
Dr. Fuller's claim of a scriptural sanction, which 
fills several pages, contains a beautiful exposition 
of the true doctrine of expediency ; of the differ- 
ence between opposing a deeply-rooted and or- 



AND SLAVERY. 19 

ganized evil, by positive enactments, and by the 
inculcation of a great principle which shall work 
like leaven and gradually subvert it ; of the supe- 
rior wisdom of the latter method ; and then urges 
a defence of the apostles for tolerating slavery as 
a social evil, on the ground that, by this subtle 
and effectual method, they sought to accomplish 
its extinction ? If the Christian doctrine " hath 
this extent, no more," it will be very slow in the 
work of delivering the American captive ; and our 
regret, therefore, on reading such a statement of 
it, has been increased by perceiving that Mr. 
Barnes has taken substantially the same position. 
But in all these exhibitions of the scriptural 
doctrine, we doubt not that there is a cardinal 
mistake ; and that mistake is in defining the rela- 
tion denoted by the words " servant " and " mas- 
ter," dovlo^, and Kvpwc or SeaTrorTjg, by the law of 
Rome instead of " the law of Christ." In the 
community of Christians this latter governed all 
relations. For unto whom were these three 
epistles of Paul and one of Peter, which contain 
the passages referred to, originally addressed? 
To the world at large ? No. To the subjects of 
the Roman empire, as such ? No. To men, as 
men and citizens ? No. They were addressed 
to little communities of Christians voluntarily 
united as churches, as those who were " called to 
be saints," " the faithful brethren in Christ ; " to 
those who had " come out from the world and 
been separate ; " to the regenerated, baptized, 
and sworn subjects of the Messiah's kingdom ; to 
those who had received, as their first lesson, the 
doctrine that, unless they could willingly give up 
" houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or 
mother, or wife, or children, or lands " (or ser- 



20 CHRISTIANITY 

vants), "for their Lord's sake, they were not 
worthy of him ; " to those, and those only, who, 
having been " aliens from the commonwealth of 
Israel, and strangers from the covenants of prom- 
ise," had now been " brought nigh by the blood 
of Christ, who had broken down the middle wall 
of partition between them, and made them to sit 
together in heavenly places." Before the epistles 
were written, all these persons had risen above 
the level of the Roman law to a higher moral 
realm, wherein Christ swayed a sceptre of sove- 
reignty ; unto whom, looking up, they could say, 
with the voice of a common adoration, in response 
to his own announcement to them. Thou alone art 
our master, and all we aee brethren. 

A change so great as this, expressed or implied 
in every title, formulary, and peculiar phrase of 
the apostolic epistles, modified at once all the 
permanent relations of life, — held forth to their 
view a new doctrine of right, a new standard by 
which to judge of all the duties pertaining to the 
connections in which they stood, and new motives 
of action, drawn from their communion as subjects 
of a common Lord, and heirs of the same heaven- 
ly inheritance. And after they had thus " learned 
Christ, the t^uth as it was in him," — even from 
the lips of apostles, who had preached to them, 
like Paul on Mars' Hill, in the days of their very 
paganism and unregeueracy, that " God had made 
of one blood all nations of men to dwell upon all 
the face of the earth," * did their case now re- 
quire a letter of special instruction to inform 
them that one of their number had no right to 
hold the other as property, — to exact his toil by 

* Acts xvii. 26. 



AND SLAVERY. 21 

violence, or to bind him by the terrors of the 
civil law to do service against his own consent, 
lest silence on this subject should be fairly con- 
strued into a divine toleration of the prevailing 
heathen custom ? As well might we suppose 
that special instructions would be necessary to 
direct them not to sacrifice their children unto 
Moloch, or not to fight each other as gladiators, 
or not to obey the law of the emperor which 
commanded all faithful citizens to. deliver up the 
Christians to the civil authority. Where the law 
of the empire was at variance with the law of 
Christ, who can doubt to which they would yield 
the supremacy ? 

That this view of the case is true and just, will 
appear further, if we consider how greatly a 
knowledge of the law of Christ modified a Chris- 
tian's sense of duty touching the other permanent 
relations of life. It is certainly an error into 
which many have fallen, to discuss this subject 
as if, by the law of Rome, the right of slave- 
property inhered only in the relation indicated 
by the icords master and servant ; whereas it 
pertained as really to the relation indicated in 
the New Testament by the words yovevg and tekvov 
— parent and child. Any school-boy may learn 
the origin of this domestic slavery from the first 
chapter of Goldsmith's History of Rome. It is 
clear, not only from Cicero, in his treatise on the 
laws, but from nearly all the Roman writers, his- 
torians, and poets, that every father had the power 
of life and death over his children — could expose 
them to death in infancy ; and not only so, but a 
child was not deemed legitimate, or treated as 
such, unless the father took it formally from the 
ground, and placed it on his bosom. Hence arose 



22 CHRISTIANITY 

the phrase " tollere filium" — to educate. Dr. 
Adam, m his Roman Antiquities, presents the 
following statements : " Even when his children 
were grown up, the father might imprison, 
scourge, send them bound to work in the country, 
and also put them to death by any punishment he 
pleased, if they deserved it. Hence, a father is 
called a domestic judge or magistrate, by Seneca. 
A son could acquire no property but by his father's 
consent ; and what he did thus acquire was called 
his peculium, as that of a slave.* The condition 
of a son was, in some respects, harder than that 
of a slave. A slave, when sold once, became free ; 
but a son, not, unless sold three times. The 
power of the father was suspended when the son 
was promoted to any public office, but not extin- 
guished. For it continued, not only during the 
life of the children, but likewise extended to 
grandchildren and great-grandchildren. None 
of them became their own masters (sui juris), till 
the death of their father and grandfather. A 
daughter, by marriage, passed from the power of 
her father under that of her husband."t 

In the emancipation of a son from the authori- 
ty of his father, the law prescribed a tedious 
process, which the parties were obliged to observe. 
In the presence of witnesses, before the tribunal 
of a magistrate, the father gave over his son to 
the purchaser, adding these words, ^'3£ancupo 
tihi hunc filium qui meus estT '" But as, by the 
principles of the Roman law, a son, after being 
manumitted once and again, fell back into the 
power of his father, the imaginary sale was thrice 

* Livy, n. 41. 

t Roman Antiquities, 50, 51. N. Y. 1826. 



AND SLAVERY. 23 

to be repeated, either on the same day and before 
the same witnesses, or on different days and be- 
fore different witnesses ; and then the purchaser, 
instead of manumitting him, which would have 
conferred a jus patronatus on himself, sold him 
back to the natural father, who immediately man- 
umitted him by the same formalities as a slave. 
Thus the son became his own master. Sui juris 
f actus est. — Livy, VII. 1 6. In emancipating a 
daughter or grandchildren, the same formalities 
were used, but only once ; they were not thrice 
repeated, as in emancipating a son. Unica man- 
cipatio siifficiehat." 

Tedious as these processes seem, they were 
rigidly observed ; and there was very little abate- 
ment of them until the reign of Justinian, five 
centuries after Christ. These laws were not 
a dead letter : the incidental allusions to pater- 
nal authority indicate that the severest execu- 
tions of them were familiar to the minds of the 
people. Thus Sallust, in his history of Cata- 
line's conspiracy (§ 40), says, " A Fulvius, son 
of a senator, was taken on the road, brought 
back to the city, and put to death by his father's 
orders." In his history of the Decline and Fall 
of the Roman Empire, Gibbon remarks, " The 
exclusive, absolute, and perpetual dominion of the 
father over his children, is peculiar to the Roman 
jurisprudence, and seems to be coeval with the 
foundation of the city. The paternal power was 
instituted or confirmed by Romulus himself; and, 
after the practice of three centuries, it was in- 
scribed on the fourth table of the Decemvirs. 
In the forum, the senate, or the camp, the adult 
son of a Roman citizen enjoyed the public and 
private rights of a person : in his father's house, 
he was a mere thing ; confounded by the laws 



24 CHRISTIANITY 

with the moveables, the cattle, and the slaves, 
whom the capricious master might alienate or 
destroy without being responsible to an earthly- 
tribunal. The hand which bestowed the daily 
sustenance might resume the voluntary gift; and 
whatever was acquired by the labor or fortune of 
the son, was immediately lost in the property of 
the father. At the call of indigence or avarice, the 
master of a family could dispose of his children 
or his slaves. According to his discretion, a 
father might chastise the real or imaginary faults 
of his children by stripes, by imprisonment, by 
exile, by sending them to the country to work in 
chains among the meanest of his servants. The 
majesty of a parent was armed with the power 
of life and death ; and the example of such 
bloody executions which were sometimes praised 
and never punished, may be traced in the annals 
of Rome beyond the times of Pompey and Au- 
gustus. Without fear, though not without danger 
of abuse, the Roman legislators had reposed an 
unbounded confidence in the sentiments of pater- 
nal love ; and the oppression was tempered by 
the assurance, that each generation must succeed 
in its turn to the awful dignity of parent and 
master." * 

But now, to all this antichristian power con- 
ferred by the Roman law on the parent, there is 
not the slightest allusion in the epistles. Is the 
Christian father there commanded not to kill his 
son, as he had the legal right to do ? Is he told 
not to sell him ? Is he told not to treat him as a 
slave ? Is he urged to manumit him ? No — 

* Milman's Gibbon, HI. 169. Gibbon quotes the Jus- 
tinian code, saying, Nulli enira alii sunt homines, qui talem 
in liberos habeant potestatem qualem nos habemus. 



AND SLAVERY. 25 

nothing of this. Let us ask, in the strain of the 
writers on slavery, whence this profound silence 
on these important points of Christian ethics, 
which must have attracted the notice of the 
apostles ? Is it not clear as the light, that this 
deeply rooted and organized evil of Jilial slavery 
arising from Pagan ideas and usages, the apos- 
tles thought it expedient to tolerate awhile, but to 
inculcate broad principles which should work like 
leaven, gradually extirpate it, and so, in the 
process of time, raise the members of the 
Christian family to that dignity of freedom, that 
security of life, and to that equality of privileges, 
which were conferred by the Jewish law before 
the coming of Messiah? Such is the apology 
to be made for the apostles in this case, accord- 
ing to the reasonings and concessions against 
which we speak. And is this the best defence 
which we, as Christians, can urge for the silence 
of Paul, and Peter, and John, respecting these 
things ? If so, well may they pray from their 
celestial exaltation, Lord, save us from our 
friends — shield thou our apostoHc character from 
the imputations of those who are called by thy 
name and acknowledge our authority. 

Thanks be unto God, we are not reduced to 
the necessity of acquiescing in any such apolo- 
gies or explanations touching the silence of the 
apostles on the duty of setting captives or child- 
ren free. These evils were not written upon, 
as practical matters, to Christian churches, be- 
cause, under " the law of Christ," the son needed 
no emancipation. When that law was received 
by a family, the son was already free. The 
father's right to govern him, during his minority, 
arose from his duty to guard him in years of 
3 



26 CHRISTIANITY 

weakness, and to train liim up amidst the season 
of youth, ignorance, and inexperience, "in the 
way he should go," so that, when old, he would 
not depart from it. Instead, therefore, of an 
apostle's writing to Christian churches against 
such horrible evils as the Roman law entailed 
on the relation of father and son, or on the right 
of the son to liberty, or on the duty of emanci- 
pation, it was enough, simply to say, " Fathers, 
provoke not your children to wrath, but bring them 
up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. 
Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this 
right. Honor thy father and thy mother, which 
is the first command with promise."* As in the 
spiritual kingdom of Christ, where his religion 
had sway, Christianity did not, for a moment, tol- 
erate the filial slavery of Rome, so neither did it 
tolerate her servile slavery. The silence of the 
apostles as to emancipation has the very same 
relation to the one kind of servitude as to the 
other ; and the idea of tolerating slavery, as a 
system, was not entertained by Christians in 
early times, until it appeared in company with 
the most abominable and fatal corruptions. 

Not only in the relation of the child to the 
father, but also in that of the wife to the husband, 
did the Roman law establish a power adverse to 
the precepts and the spirit of Christianity. In 
case of any offence whatever, the husband was 
the supreme judge, invested with authority to 
acquit her or to condemn her to death. The law 
placed her like a slave at his feet, and her life 
hung on his decree. Observe the testimony of 
Dionysius Halicarnassensis on this point : — " The 
law obliged the married women, as having no 

* Ephesians, vi, 1 — 3. 



AND SLAVERY. 27 

other refuge, to conform themselves entirely to 
the temper of their husbands. — But if she com- 
mitted any fault, the injured person was her 
judge, and determined the degree of her punish- 
ment. In case of adultery, or where it was 
found she had drunk wine (which the Greeks 
would look upon as the least of all crimes), her re- 
lations, together with her husband, were appoint- 
ed her judges, who were allowed by Romulus to 
punish both these crimes with death."* This 
law, of so ancient date, continued to be operative 
under the empire. Tacitus mentions a case 
which occurred at Rome, in the year 57, in the 
reign of Nero : — " Pomponia Graecina, a woman 
of illustrious birth, and the wife of Plantius, who, 
on his return from Britain, entered the city with 
the pomp of an ovation, was accused of embrac- 
ing a foreign superstition. The matter was re- 
ferred to the jurisdiction of her husband. Plau- 
tius, m conformity to ancient usage, called to- 
gether a number of her relations, and in their 
presence sat in judgment on the conduct of his 
wife-t It has often been said, to the honor of 
Roman chastity, that for more than five centuries 
not an instance of divorce transpired in Rome ; 
but it is very evident that this fact is to be ac- 
counted for, rather from the rigor of the law, 
which bound the destiny of the wife to that of her 
husband, than from the superior virtue of the 
people. There was little occasion for a formal 
divorce where a husband exercised the authority 
of an absolute despot, and where an offending 
wife had no right of appeal from his decision to 
that of a civil tribunal. 

Another feature of the marriage relation, under 

* Dionys. Hal. ii. 25. t Annal. xiii. 32. 



28 CHRISTIANITy 

the Roman government, deserves attention here. 
Between a citizen and a foreigner there could be 
no legal marriage,"^ and the offspring of such a 
union were deemed illegitimate. They were 
called Hybridas or Mongrels, and their condition 
was very little better than that of slaves. Livy 
mentions that when the Campanians were forced 
to go to Rome to pay their taxes, they offered a 
petition that the children, whom they had by Ro- 
man wives, might be treated as legitimate, and 
made their lawful heirs.t Indeed, this sort of 
union was not dignified by the name of marriage, 
any more than was a union between slaves ; for 
in both cases it was stigmatized by the same de- 
grading appellation.! Of this firmly established 
law there was no change until the days of the 
Emperor Caracalla. During more than two cen- 
turies of the Christian era, the children who may 
have sprung from the marriage of a Roman citi- 
zen and a Jew, or a Greek, were denied the rights 
and honors of a legitimate birth. Paul himself, 
who was a Roman citizen, declared that he had 
a right to "lead about a wife" with him; but 
had he or any one of the Roman converts been 
pleased to marry a Galatian or a Syrian Chris- 
tian, the law would, as far as concerned civil 
rights, have placed the offspring of such a union 
on a level with the children of a base and crimi- 
nal connection. 

Now, when we consider that the marriage re- 
lation lies at the basis of all organized and Cliris- 
tianized society, it may be well to inquire how it 

* Non erat cum extenio connubmm. Senec. Ben. iv. 35. 

t Livy, xxxviii. 36. 

j Conuubium est matrimonium inter cives ; inter servos 
autem, aut inter civium et peregrinse conditionis hominem, 
aut servilis, non est connubium sed contuhernium. Boeth. in 
Cic. Top. 4. 



AND SLAVERY. 29 

is, that in the epistles of Paul, all of which were 
addressed to persons living under the Koman em- 
pire, no care is taken to guard the churches 
against the specific evils of this Pagan legislation, 
which, in the eyes of multitudes, had been em- 
balmed and hallowed by time ; had been blended 
with the very elements of domestic and social 
life ; had been sustained in every age by the 
most illustrious examples, and had interwoven it- 
self with the earliest remembrances and associa- 
tions of the civilized world, touching human rights, 
the fitness of things, and the moral order of the 
universe. Strange as it may seem to some, no 
husband, in all the realm of the Ctesars, is told 
that his wife had been raised by Christianity 
above the level of her condition under the Roman 
law. No one is told that the domestic despotism, 
on which Roman society was based, was an abom- 
ination in the sight of Heaven, and that it was a 
contravention of the original law of Paradise, 
which placed the man and the woman on the 
ground of a true moral equality. No Roman cit- 
izen is forbidden to scourge his wife for drinking 
wine ! Even her life is left at his mercy ; and in 
all the New Testament there is not issued a sin- 
gle command forbidding a Christian man to kill 
his wife for any fault which might render her, in 
his judgment, worthy of death ! And yet Chris- 
tianity arose and spread in a part of the earth 
where it found the exercise of such power not on- 
ly common, but where that power was embodied 
in forms of law, enthroned in the palace, sustain- 
ed in the preetorium, and revered by public opin- 
ion. What now shall we infer from the silence 
of the sacred scripture on these points? The 
domestic relations themselves are fully recogniz- 
3# 



30 CHRISTIANITY 

ed, moral precepts are given to all who are uni- 
ted in them ; but why are these enormous evils, 
which affected so deeply the condition of innu- 
merable wives and children, left untouched ? Is 
it that apostolic Christianity, with a wisdom and 
prudence worthy of all imitation, saw fit to tol- 
erate all these things, being content to teach those 
broad and mighty principles which, working grad- 
ually at the core of society, would achieve its 
regeneration, after a series of ages, and thus, on 
grounds of expediency, withheld from its own 
disciples the plain truth of God with a view to 
ultimate effect ? Certainly ; according to the con- 
cessions of those who have controverted Dr. Ful- 
ler, this must be the explanation ; but, according 
to the reasonings of Dr. Fuller himself, Chris- 
tianity must have intended to sanction the legal 
powers which these relations had so long confer- 
red, and only to guard against their abuse ! But 
will any man who has become converted to 
Christianity by reading the gospels, by listening to 
Christ's own discourses, and by opening his soul 
to their spirit, remain calmly satisfied with either 
of these positions ? By no means. He will re- 
coil equally from them both. Indeed, Dr. Fuller, 
in his reply to Dr. Wayland's explanation on 
this point, writes like a man who could not avoid 
despising the apostles themselves if they had held 
back the truth in that way ; and with the most of 
his earnest remonstrance we sympathize to the 
whole extent of our capacity of feeling. With 
truth and justness does he say, " The apostles took 
heaven to witness that they had kept back noth- 
ing ;" and in addressing, not only the people, but 
the pastors, who were to teach the people, and 
bequeath their ministry to their successors, they 



AND SLAVERY. 31 

asserted their purity from the blood of all men, 
because they " had not shunned to declare the 
whole counsel of God." Yet they had shunned 
even to hint to masters that they were living in 
a " sin of appalling magnitude/' and had kept 
back truth, which, if you are right, was of tre- 
mendous importance." 

These words must be felt forcibly by those to 
whom they are addressed ; but we thank God 
that the New Testament presents no such diffi- 
culty as that which suggested this appeal on be- 
.half of the apostles. The reason why those faithful 
guides did not hint to masters that they were liv- 
ing in •" a sin of appalling magnitude," was not 
that slaveholding had been sanctified, but simply 
because these persons, at the era of their conver- 
sion to Christianity, had entered into a new spir- 
itual kingdom, and interpreted all their relations 
and duties by the light of its heavenly principles, 
and not by the light of the Roman law or any 
other human code. Their souls had risen supe- 
rior to the Roman law, as a guide to duty or a 
rule of life, as truly as our Christian converts in 
China have risen above the law of " the celestial 
empire." Christianity had not yet become cor- 
rupted ; its public teachers had not quite yet be- 
gun to modify its oracles so as to suit a false 
philosophy, to harmonize with the prevailing ideas 
of Roman civilization, and so to turn away its 
disciples " from the simplicity that is in Christ." 
These first Christians used words which had a 
weight of meaning in them, when they spoke of 
their moral isolation from society, when they 
called themselves " a peculiar people," the sub- 
jects of a " new creation," members of " the 
household of God," " fellow-citizens of the com- 



82 CHRISTIANITY 

monwealth of Israel,"* and said "the world 
knoweth us not." The precepts of Christ had 
taken complete possession of their minds; had 
not only transformed their theology, but their 
moral characters, and their social relations. In 
their view, one sentence of Christ's Sermon on 
the Mount possessed more moral worth and live- 
ly efficacy, than all the lectures of the philoso- 
phers, and the laws of the twelve tables put to- 
gether. Before they took the vows of their pro- 
fession, they had " counted the cost," and were 
ready to suffer the loss of all things. As much 
as in them lay, they obeyed the civil law ; but in 
their lives they " surpassed the laws." So en- 
tirely did the word of Christ rule them, that they 
would not allow the civil law to arbitrate at all 
on matters which pertained to their own mutual 
relations. " Dare any of you," says the apostle 
to some who needed special instruction,—" dare 
any of you, having a matter against another, to 
go to law before the unjust, and not before the 
saints ?"t Far from availing themselves of any 
power granted by the civil law to retain their 
brethren in bondage, their religion forbade them 
to refer to that law any question respecting their 
duties to each other. 

Now in reading what is written to societies so 
constituted, it is a great error to infer that the 
apostles either sanctioned or tolerated any rela- 
tion between man and man as established by the 
Eoman law, because we do not find in their epis- 
tles a particular denunciation of it. 

In regard to any such relation which may be in 
question, the main thing to be ascertained is this : 
How do the precepts of Christ bear upon it? 

* Ephes. ii. passim. f 1 Cor. vi. 1. 



AND SLAVERY. 3S 

These the early churches had acknowledged as 
their guide ; to these they had vowed allegiance. 
Whatever conflicted with these, they had sworn 
to abandon, in the very act of their baptism, by 
which they had owned the sovereignty of the 
]Messiah, in whose kingdom there was no place 
found for those distinctions of privilege, which, 
according to the Roman law, pertained to rank, 
sex, birth, blood, and nationality : " For," says 
the apostle, " as many of you as have been bap- 
tized into Christ, have put on Christ ; there is 
neither Jew nor Greek — there is neither bond 
nor free — there is neither male nor female ; 
FOR YE are all one in Christ Jesus." * That 
legislation which had raised one class above an- 
other, on the ground of those distinctions which 
are here named, primitive Christianity thus 
heartily renounced, as being incompatible with 
the law of Christ. 

In order to feel the force of this statement, let 
any one fairly consider what a weight of argument 
the phrase which we have just repeated, carried 
with it to the ear of a primitive Christian. " The 
LAW OF Christ ! " In the apostolic age that was 
no mere abstraction. It was the Law of laws. Its 
authority was imperial. Its decision was ulti- 
mate. In addressing the church of Galatia, Paul 
said, " Bear ye one another's burdens, and so 
fulfil the laio of Christ : " f thus appealing to it, 
without citing the words of any precept, he im- 
plied that it was well understood. When it was 
referred to in this way, all knew that the law of 
benevolence — the law of mutual love — was in- 
tended, by way of eminence. The apostle James 

* Galatians, iii. 27, 28. f Galatians, vi, 2. 



34: CHRISTIANITY 

alludes to it in a similar manner, in a passage 
which contains a warning against discourteous 
treatment of the poor : " If ye fulfil ' the royal 
law ' according to the scripture, thou shalt love 
thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well ; but if ye 
have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are 
convicted of the law as transgressors." * Our 
Lord had laid it down, in his early teachings, 
among the first principles of his religion : " All 
things whatsoever ye would that men should do 
to you, do ye even so to them ; for this is the law 
and the prophets." t The equal love of our 
neighbor he connected with supreme love to God, 
and on these two commandments he declared that 
all true religion depends.^ But when he pro- 
ceeds to expound this law respecting our neighbor, 
what does he teach as to its bearing and extent ? 
Did he imply that it was to be restricted to a 
particular nation, or rank, or color, or proximity 
of place ? The majority of his audiences, we 
know, did limit it by their sectional prejudices and 
national antipathies ; but in the parable of the 
good Samaritan, he taught them that the precept 
erases these bounds, enjoins love to man as man, 
our fellow-creature and our brother, and bids us 
to do good to all men as we have opportunity. 
The Priest and the Levite of his day, who treated 
such an interpretation with contempt, he pictures 
to our view in all their native deformity. In ad- 
dition to this "law of love," he gave another 
especially to his disciples, enforced by a motive 
drawn from his peculiar relation to them, "A 
new commandment I give unto you, that ye love 

* James, ii. 8, 9. 

t Matthew, vii. 12. J Matthew, xxii. 37 — 40. 



AND SLAVERY. 35 

one another ; even as I have loved you, that ye 
also love one another." However a refined and 
artful criticism may treat such precepts in these 
days, they were understood by the early Chris- 
tians in their plain sense, and interpreted accord- 
ing to " the simplicity that is in Christ." A com- 
munity governed by such laws as these, could 
never make a man serve as a slave, nor would 
it be possible for one of them to hold his Christian 
brother in bondage against his will for a single 
hour. 

Moreover, it may be well to observe, in this 
connection, that the distinction on which the tem- 
porary slavery of Judea had been founded by the 
Mosaic code was entirely abolished by Christian- 
ity : we mean the distinction between Jews and 
Heathen. The breaking down of this " middle 
wall of partition " was the great glory of the new 
dispensation. "We know how deeply " the lead- 
ing men " of our Saviour's generation were of- 
fended with his teaching on this point ; how bit- 
terly Jewish pride must have scowled upon him, 
when he said, in allusion to a Gentile's faith, 
" Many shall come from the east and west, and 
shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and 
Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven ; but the chil- 
dren of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer 
darkness." The preaching of this doctrine was a 
bold feature in the ministry of the apostles ; and 
the mere mention of it, by one of them, caused a 
crowd in Jerusalem to give vent to their anger by 
casting dust into the air, and by crying aloud, 
^' Away with such a fellow from the earth, for it 
is not fit that he should live." * Yet these mar^ 

* Acts xxii, 22. 



36 CHRISTIANITY 

tyrs to truth were faithful to their trust and 
conquered by " the word of their testimony." 
They were true reformers. In founding a new 
community, they laid, broadly and plainly, the 
basis on which it was to rest. And as the tem- 
porary structure of Mosaic slavery was made to 
depend on a distinction which it was the design 
of Christianity to abolish at the very outset, we can 
easily imagine how abhorrent from the convic- 
tions and sentiments of the first disciples must 
have been the idea of a slave-system in the Chris- 
tian church. 

In exact accordance with these views, is the 
style and manner of apostolic address in the Epis- 
tles of the New Testament. The terms used to 
designate the relation of master and servant are 
not those which imply man's ownership of man ; 
and from the terms themselves, the advocate of 
slavery can prove nothing, because the same and 
corresponding terms are used in lands where 
slavery does not exist. The exact import of the 
term will vary according to the law by which you 
determine the condition of a doulos, or servant : 
just as it is now in this land ; in Carolina a serv- 
vant means a slave, and in New England it 
means a freeman voluntarily hired. But how 
entirely Christianity modified the relation, may be 
seen by consulting the direction which Paul gave 
to Timothy, respecting the discharge of his duty 
as a Christian teacher. It occurs in the 6 th 
chapter of the 1st Epistle, the 1st and 2d verses. 
Here, no advice is given to the young pastor as to 
his manner of addressing masters : it relates to 
servants only. And of servants, two classes are 
contemplated ; first, those who were Christian 
servants of heathen masters, are considered. 



AND SLAVERY. 37 

This class is designated by being " under the 
yoke." " Let as many servants as are under the 
yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, 
that the name of God and his doctrine be not 
blasphemed." This, as Christians, they w^ere 
urged to do, even though they might be subject 
to the worst oppression, in agreement with the 
address of Peter to the same class ; " for this is 
thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God 
endure grief, suffering lorongfuUy.'' A heathen 
master, interpreting the rights of a servant by the 
light of the Roman law, would be very likely to 
commit acts of gross injustice ; but the precept 
enjoining a meek endurance of this wrong, for 
Christ's sake, can, of course, furnish no sanction to 
the master's continuance of it. But now, in this 
epistle to Timothy, Paul proceeds, in the next 
sentence, to speak of a different class of cases ; 
those in which both the parties were Christians. 
And here it is quite remarkable, that, instead of 
directing masters to treat their servants kindly, he 
calls upon servants themselves to heioare lest they 
should DESPISE THEIR MASTERS ! His words 
are, " And they that have believing masters, let 
them not despise them, because they are brethren ; 
but rather do them service because they are faith- 
ful and beloved, partakers of the benefit." Who 
does not see that this exhortation arose from the 
fact, that, when both the parties had come under 
the law of Christ, Christianity had changed the 
relation in which they stood — had enfranchised 
the slave — had made him one of the " brethren " 
— had invested him with a new dignity and new 
rights ; so that now, instead of the master being 
under a new temptation to treat the servant 
wrongfully, there was greater danger lest the ser- 
4 



38 CHRISTIANITY 

vant should abuse his elevation, should abandon 
the master's service, or treat him with contempt ? 
Evidently the style, the letter, and the spirit 
of these directions to Timothy, indicate a funda- 
mental change which Christianity had wrought in 
the relation of these two classes of persons, where 
both had come " under the law " of the new dis- 
pensation. They had now risen to that high con- 
dition described in the words of their common 
X/ord, " One is your Master, even Christ, and all 
ye are brethren." Violence, or involuntary sub- 
jection to bondage, Avas incompatible with such a 
change ; and now the apostle was chiefly anxious 
that the parties should not separate from each 
other, but by continuing together on friendly 
terms, and, in the discharge of mutual duties, 
should prove to the world that the law of Chris- 
tian love is a better cement for society than the 
law of force. No class of persons had it in their 
power to afford a brighter demonstration of this, 
than that of enfranchised servants. If they avail- 
ed themselves of their acknowledged rights to 
forsake their old masters, the new religion would 
be dishonored; if they remained, and yielded 
faithful service from a principle of love and of 
religious obligation, Christianity would, through 
them, reveal its moral and conservative tendency, 
and would be sure to gain new victories. The 
appeal which was made therefore to Christian 
servants on this behalf, has a most important 
bearing, and proves alike that they had all " been 
called unto liberty," and that it was expected that 
the spirit of their religion would dispose them 
not to " use their liberty for an occasion to the 
flesh." * If any one deem the case to be other- 

-* Galatianp. v. 13. 



AND SLAVERY. 3\) 

wise, just let him imagine how preposterous it 
would seem for any grave and reverend bishop 
of our day, or for any public body in the country, 
to send a message to the young pastors of South 
Carolina, urging them to teach the slaves of 
Christian planters " not to despise their masters " ! 
Surely, such a message would sound strangely to 
the planters themselves ; and if it were carried 
into effect by some obedient Timothy, they would 
see " the foolishness of preaching," in a new point 
of light. 

The same idea of a change in the relations of 
these two classes accomplished by Christianity, 
is implied and indicated by Paul's address to 
those who belonged to the church of Ephesus.* 
There he first addresses servants, and urges 
them to be exemplary in rendering obedience to 
their masters, for the sake of honoring the cause 
of Christianity — "as the servants of Christ, 
doing the will of God from the heart, with good 
will doing service to the Lord, and not to 
MEN." Undoubtedly, this precept was intended 
to be as unlimited as that given by Peter (1 Pet. 
ii. 19), that is, to cases wherein the servant was 
called to " endure grief, for conscience toward 
God, suffering ivrongfully .'' However fro ward 
or perverse (a^oUog) the master might be, how- 
ever unjust his demands, the Christian servant 
was summoned to the exercise of patience and 
submission, in imitation of Christ, who, " when he 
suffered, threatened not, but committed himself to 
Him that judgeth righteously." Of course, Pe- 
ter did not mean to sanction the wrong ; and so, 
too, in this exhortation of Paul to the Ephesians, 

* Eph. vi. 5—9. 



40 CHRISTIANITY 

he meant to urge the Christian servant to bear 
wrong meekly, without giving a sanction to the 
wrong itself. Even if he were subjected to the 
worst, of heathen masters, the apostle wished 
him to cultivate all fidelity in his service, not on 
the ground of right or justice, but because God 
would reward his submission to injustice, if it 
were exercised in order to promote the honor 
and triumphs of religion. The specific motive 
by which the Christian servant is excited to do 
this, is thus expressed : " With good will doing 
service to the Lord, and not to men ; knowing that 
whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same 
shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be 
bond or free." 

But when, in the next sentence, Paul makes a 
transition, and addresses himself to masters who 
were Christians, his words are few, but very sig- 
nificant; for, while he tells them to remember 
that tribunal where there is no respect of per- 
sons, he not only forbids their using force in the 
government of their servants, but even to refrain 
from threatening to do so. He says, *' Ye mas- 
ters, do the same things unto them, forbearing 
threatening, knowing that your Master also is in 
heaven ; neither is there respect of persons with 
Him." In the Greek text, the word uTcsdrjv^ 
translated threatening, is preceded by the article, 
and has a more specific sense. Dr. Bloomfield 
has evidently bestowed some labor on the pas- 
sage, in investigating the force of the terms ; 
and says (in his Notes on the Greek Testa- 
ment), that the word, with the article, signifies, 
" the punishments awarded by the law." This 
being the case, the precept given by the apostle 
to Ephesian masters was a direct prohibition 



AND SiLAVEKY. 41 

against their availing themselves of power con- 
ferred by the Roman law' in the government of 
their servants. It was an explicit command to 
them to rise above the Roman law in this rela- 
tion, and to regulate their conduct by the law of 
Christ, at whose judgment-seat they must stand. 
But the Roman law being set aside, where could 
the Christian master find any authority in the 
law of Christ for holding his brethren in invol- 
untary servitude by means of violence? Such 
a pretension no man possessing ordinary self- 
respect, would venture to set up. An intelligent 
Southerner has aptly said, that the slave sys- 
tem, as it is, may be defended on the ground of 
necessity, just as war is defended, in some cases, 
"because the government which it requires is 
nothing more nor less than a prevalence of mar- 
tial law." This witness is true ; but how a state 
of martial law is to be maintained by men whose 
religion forbids them, not merely to remit legal 
punishments, but even to " forbear threatening," 
is a problem which yet remains for those Chris- 
tian casuists who claim the blessed Jesus as the 
patron of slavery. 

The passage in the epistle to the Colossians 
(iii. 22 — 25 and iv. 1) presents no feature of 
the case different from that which has already 
been exhibited. Christian servants were ex- 
horted to cultivate the domestic virtues on those 
same grounds which have been already sug- 
gested. They are bidden to rise superior to the 
legal relation, and to yield a voluntary service for 
the sake of their heavenly Master, and then fol- 
low these spirit-stirring words : " And whatso- 
ever ye do, do it heartily to the Lord, and not to 

men, knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive 

4.* 



45 CHRISTIANITY 

the reward of the inheritance, for ye serve the 
Lord Christ." The spirit which glows in the 
address is abhorrent from the idea that any man 
had a rightful claim to hold these Christian 
brethren in an involuntary servitude. 

The address which follows to the masters who 
had become Christians, is, in this case also, very 
brief. It simply commands them to be just, and 
to remember their own accountability. " Mas- 
ters, give unto your servants that which is just 
and equal, knowing that you also have a Master 
in heaven." There is not a free country in the 
world, and there never will be one, where this 
precept will not be appropriate and needful. 

There is, in the New Testament, another apos- 
tolic precept which relates to the relative duties 
of servants. It is in the epistle to Titus (ii. 9, 
10) ; but its letter and spirit are in entire accord- 
ance with those which we have already quoted. 
This class of persons are urged to make the 
relation in which they stood a means of advanc- 
ing the Christian religion ; to do this by so living 
as to " adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in 
all things." In that age of ardent Christian 
love, the promotion of the cause of Christ was 
deemed a counterpoise to every evil. No doubt, 
many of these servants would have gladly con- 
tinued in subjection to Pagans, if by so doing they 
could gain new trophies for their Redeemer, 
just as it has been known that Christians, filled 
with the missionary spirit, have actually sold 
themselves into servitude, in order to extend the 
cause of human salvation. At a period glowing 
with this holy martyr-spirit, it was common for 
the friends of Christ to content themselves with 
any lot in wliich they could promote his glory, 



AND SLAVERY. 43 

and easy for them to respond to the apostle's 
appeal : " Art thou called, being a servant ? Care 
not for it; but if thou mayest be free, use it 
rather : for he that is called in the Lord, being a 
servant, is the Lord's freeman.^ ' 

As an incidental illustration of this state of 
things which we have been contemplating, it 
would be difficult to imagine any thing more ex- 
pressive than the letter of Paul to Philemon. 
The whole of it is in exact accordance with that 
condition of the Christian church, which distin- 
guished the apostolic age, when it consisted of 
scattered communities in Pagan lands, who had 
come under the law of Christ, and had ceased to 
determine their duties by the civil law, or to 
avail themselves of the powers which it confer- 
red, to promote their own worldly benefit by acts 
of oppression. Onesimus had been the slave of 
Philemon. He had fled away from his master, 
and became a Christian, under the ministry of 
Paul, at Rome. This converted slave the apos- 
tle wished to retain at Rome, to minister unto 
his own necessities ; but he did not wish to do it 
without the concurrence of his beloved Phile- 
mon, his " fellow-laborer." According to the 
law of Rome, Onesimus was still the property of 
Philemon, who, as a citizen, had a legal claim 
upon all his services ; but the letter does not in- 
timate the slightest probability that Philemon, 
the Christian, would or could urge that claim. 
So far from this, it is distinctly asserted that the 
relation of the two parties had been essentially 
changed. How could that fact be more clearly 
expressed than in the following words : " For 

* 1 Cor. vii. 21,22. 



44 CHRISTIANITY 

perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that 
thou shouldst receive him for ever ; not now as 
a servant, hut above a servant, a brother beloved, 
specially to me, but how much more unto thee, 
both in the flesh and in the Lord ?"* This latter 
phrase effectually guards the interpretation of the 
letter against that sophistry which concedes that 
Onesimus was Philemon's brother, considered as 
a Christian, but refuses to extend the acknow- 
ledgment of brotherhood to civil relations and to 
common life. It shows that the apostle did not 
speak of brotherhood in some refined, ethereal, 
spiritual sense, which had no practical issues, but 
in a sense which would develope itself in substan- 
tial benefits to Onesimus as a mail, as a fellow- 
creature possessing a kindred nature, and endowed 
with the same moral, social, and physical sensi- 
bilities as was Philemon himself. Certainly there 
need be no difficulty in admitting the fact of so 
great a change, when we see that Paul identifies 
the happiness and interests of Onesimus with 
his own, and says to his former master : " If 
thou count me as a partner, receive him as my- 
self." 

Only a single observation further, on this let- 
ter, is necessary here ; which is, that the object 
of Paul's writing it, was not to beg for the 
liberty of Onesimus, but to perform an act 
of friendship towards Philemon ; to awaken in 
his heart a sympathetic joy over the conversion 
of his lost servant ; and to afibrd him an opportu- 
nity to do his own duty in the case, freely and 
cheerfully. The first impulse of the apostle's 
mind was to retain Onesimus, without sending 

* Verses 15, 16. 



AND SLAVERy. , 40 

him back at all ; but he concluded that it would 
be most satisfactory, on the whole, to place it 
Avithin the power of his old Colossian friend to 
express his own feelings towards Onesimus, as a 
man and a Christian. Mark the expression of 
this sentiment : " Whom I would have retained 
with me, that in thy stead he might have minis- 
tered unto me, in the bonds of the gospel : but 
without thy mind would I do nothing, that thy 
benefit should not be, as it were, of necessity, 
but willingly." A similar phrase occurs in the 
Second Epistle to the Corinthians (ix. 7), where 
Paul shows them, that, although they were bound 
by the law of Christ to contribute a supply to the 
wants of their persecuted brethren, he wished 
them to do it from a principle of love, and not 
by constraint : " Every man, as he has purposed 
in his heart, so let him give ; not grudgingly or 
of necessity." The style of address in the letter 
to Philemon is analogous to this ; for although 
the law of Christ forbade him to hold his '' be- 
loved brother" Onesimus in a state of servitude, 
by force or threatening, yet Paul deemed it desir- 
able that Philemon should show openly that he 
was governed by Christian principle in this case, 
and not by a sense of hard constraint, or the awe 
of an apostolic command. 

We have now examined those precepts of the 
apostles, touching relative duties, on which the 
advocates of slavery found their argument. It 
appears to us, not merely that they accord with 
the position which we have taken on the doc- 
trine of Christianity, but that they cannot be 
clearly and consistently understood unless they 
are seen from this point of view. There is one 
statement of Paul, however, bearing on the whole 



46 . CHRISTIANITY 

subject, which ought not to be overlooked. It is 
one which shows that Christianity places the 
crime of man-stealing on the same ground of sin- 
fulness as did the law of Moses. As we have 
already seen, by that law, it was not only a capi- 
tal crime to steal a man, but also to have in one's 
possession a man who had been stolen. Jewish 
servitude never originated in man-stealing ; and 
if in any house, or village, or town, or commu- 
nity, there had been found a slave-system which 
owned such an origin, the Mosaic law would have 
abolished it immediately when that fact had been 
established. Now, in the opening of the First 
Epistle to Timothy (i. 10), Paul views the 
crime thus treated of old in the same point of 
light, when he classes men-stealers with man-slay- 
ers, and perjured persons, and other transgressors 
of the divine law. But all know that American 
slavery did originate in man-stealing, which even 
the civil law has denounced as piracy. Those 
who now hold in their possession the descendants 
of the first captives, have not, in the sight of 
God, any more right to their persons as property, 
than our fathers had to the first captives them- 
selves, whom they purchased from the hands of 
the bloody slave-dealer, fresh and reeking from 
the coast of Africa. If the men of the present 
generation deplore their unsought relation to this 
oppressive system as a misfortune, — if it be 
their main anxiety to learn in what way they 
may set themselves right in regard to it, — the Al- 
mighty, it may be hoped, will be long-suffering 
and forbearing toward their slowness, and will 
mercifully consider their difficulties ; but if, on 
the other hand, they ratify the sins of our prede- 
cessors, and vindicate their own right to posses- 



AND SLAYERT. 47 

sion by the assumed sanctions of religion, He 
whose stored vennreance hunsf over the Ammon- 
ites during four centuries, until "' their iniquity 
was full,"' will in like manner sweep this whole 
realm of sanctimonious oppression with the be- 
som of desolation, and attest to the universe, by 
his mighty acts, that " the throne of iniquity hath 
no fellowship " with heaven. 

Neither religion, philosophy, nor humanity, 
furnish any standing-place whereon a man may 
press such a claim of right by the plea of pre- 
scription. There is nothing in human nature 
which responds to such an argument, when we 
bring the case closely home to ourselves. Time 
was, we know, when in Algiers there were a 
large number of white slaves, both English and 
Americans. Suppose, for a moment, that our own 
government had never succeeded in rescuing our 
fellow-citizens from that foreign bondage, and 
that now their descendants, our own relatives by 
blood and family, had become the inheritance of 
a new race of owners. What if, on demanding 
the release of these captives, their lords should 
meet us with such Christian arguments as are 
found in the letters of Dr. Fuller, should declare 
to us that they had not had any thing to do with 
bringing those poor people there, that they had 
found themselves in a relation of ownership to 
them, that this had now become a permanent el- 
ement of their social organization, that slavery 
had been tolerated by our own holy religion in 
the Roman empire, and that they now appealed 
to us, by our regard to order, to justice, to civil 
claims of property which time had consecrated, 
and especially by our reverence for the primitive 
and prudent teachings of that Christianity in 



48 CHRISTIANITY 

which we so much gloried, that we should show 
ourselves to be the lovers of peace, and leave 
them undisturbed, in the enjoyment of those 
rights with which Divine Providence had so long 
invested them ? Would our friends in South 
Carolina then be found yielding quietly to the 
power of these " sacred truths," and paying hom- 
age to the intellect of the Christian Teacher who 
had, by means of them, so wonderfully enlighten- 
ed the minds of the Algerines ? Would not then 
a single wail, wafted over the waters from a cap- 
tive boy bearing the name of one of their own 
families, at once identify his cause with that of 
the first sufferers, and dissolve this claim to prop- 
erty in man founded on prescription ? Would 
not every one of them feel the decisions of such 
a question at his pulse? And surely, if this 
sense of right and justice in us, short-sighted be- 
ings, can arouse our souls to overleap a long in- 
terval of years, to dispel the misty illusions of 
time, and to look at things by the simple light of 
their own unchanging moral nature, let us not 
harbor the thought that time can consecrate 
wrong doing, or avert its penalties, under the 
government of that Supreme Ruler, before whom 
" a thousand years is as one day ;" who has sol- 
emnly declared that he will " visit the iniquities 
of the fathers upon the children unto the third 
and fourth generation ;" and who declared, through 
the lips of the Messiah, to the people of Jerusalem, 
that, unless they abjured the sins of their fathers, 
they would fall beneath the weight of a woe 
which had for ages been treasuring up its stores 
of fatal judgment. 

It is with good reason, therefore, that we agree 
in sentiment with Dr. Fuller when he says. 



' AND SLAVElir. 49 

" Compared with slavery, all other topics which 
now shake and inflame men's passions in these 
United States are really trifling."* On this ac- 
count it is that we feel how unspeakably weighty 
is the obligation which has, from the first, rested 
on the American church, to hold forth God's tes- 
timony touching the nature of the evil with un- 
wavering fidelity. Dr. Fuller observes that sla- 
very was introduced here " in spite of the pro- 
tests of the colonies."! But why was this note 
of remonstrance permitted to die away, and to 
be changed, first, into soft tones of apology for 
the system, and at last into the voice of bold and 
eloquent defence ? Had the Christian church 
been faithful to her mission, the result had been 
very difterent. It is a truth, however, that in re- 
lation to this subject, the American church has, 
to a great extent, laid aside the character of a 
true and faithful witness, and has incurred cen- 
sures similar to those which are recorded in the 
second chapter of the Book of Revelation, against 
the ancient church of Pergamos, for holding back 
her testimony, in relation to the prevailing sys- 
tem of idolatry. The message there addressed 
to her, contrasts her early state of purity with 
that of the first decline of her character. " These 
things saith he who hath the sharp sword with 
two edges ; I know thy works, and where thou 
dwellest, even where Satan's seat is ; and thou 
boldest fast my name, and hast not denied my 
faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was 
my faithful martyr, who was slain among you 
where Satan dwelleth ; but I have a few things 
against thee, because thou hast there them that 
hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak 

* Page 3. t Page 131. 

5 



50 OHKISTIANITY' 

to cast a stumbling-block before the children of 
Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to 
commit fornication. Repent, or else I will come 
unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with 
the sword of my mouth." 

Now, here it is certainly interesting to observe, 
that, in order to prepare this Christian church for 
the rebuke which he was about to utter, our Lord 
shows to them that he was mindful of all the pe- 
culiar difficulties with which they were surround- 
ed ; that, in estimating the results of a people's in- 
fluence, he has regard to their place of residence, 
the state of society on which they operate, and 
the peculiar forms of depravity with which they 
may be called to wrestle. Pergamos was conse- 
crated to the Cabiri, a particular class of deities, 
and so drenched in the slough of superstition that 
every man and every child seemed to be mad up- 
on their idols. The Athenians were given up to 
idolatry, but they loved it for its associations with 
art and genius, and in it they worshipped the 
beautiful ; but the people of Pergamos loved it 
more for its lower elements, and were more pen- 
etrated with its essential spirit. Of such a place 
it might be truly said, " Satan's seat is there ;" 
for although he is called " the god of this world," 
although, as we look abroad over the nations, ev- 
ery region bears the insignia of his sway, yet, 
comparatively speaking, some parts seem to be 
like tributary provinces ; while others, for their 
wickedness, appear to lie near the seat and capi- 
tal of his empire. The recognition of this fact in 
the inspired message which we have here quoted, 
brings out to view an encouraging truth, that, al- 
though our Lord expects much of his church on 
earth, there is not an obstacle in her path which 
he has not fnllv measured. 



AND SLAVERY. 51 

The spirit of the accusation, then, against 
the Christians of Pergamos, may be thus stated, 
that, ahhough the Most High -would make the 
most merciful allowances for the small amount of 
results accomplished by the church in that city, 
he would malie none at all for their corrupting 
the principles of his religion — although he could 
bear with the small quantity of good influence 
which they had put forth, he could not bear with 
the deterioration of its quality. Small success in 
promulgating the gospel may be charitably ac- 
counted for, but to mutilate the gospel itself is a 
sin which he will visit with condign severity. 
The message itself gives evidence, that, after the 
church at Pergamos had resisted her outward 
foes with a holy and heroic spirit, she was yield- 
ing to the influence of those who were ready to 
accommodate their Christianity to the times, say- 
ing that an external conformity to the usages of 
idolatry was innocent and expedient. Perhaps 
some of them advanced, in effect, what has since 
been urged with zeal by the Papists, that the 
way to win the heathen to Christianity is not to 
be too rigidly separate from them, but to tolerate 
many errors for the present, and to turn a partici- 
pation in the rites and festivals to a good account. 
The allusion to Balak shows that some of these 
Christians had already drunk of the " Ammoni- 
tish wine," which intoxicated the Israelites, 
which led them to honor Baal Peor and to for- 
sake the law of God. Their conformity did not 
stop at the first step ; " their table became a snare 
and a trap," and their spirit of idolatry led to ev- 
ery species of evil. Their destiny, as a church, 
was involved in their fidelity to first principles. 
Hence the message sent to them from the isle of 
Patmos directs its woe against all those who per- 



52 CHKisTiA^nr 

vert the Divine word, or bring down the standard 
of its principles to the level of their own con- 
venience. That is a great sin, because it destroys 
the remedy for sin. A single Christian, or a 
church, may be able to make but little headway 
against a prevailing custom, against popular opin- 
ion, against a badly organized state of society ; 
but every church, every man, and every woman, 
may hold up a sound testimony, may state the 
truth of God correctly, and leave the consequence 
to Him, whether it be to let it work gently hke 
leaven, or to be as the fire and the hammer 
which breaks the rock of flint. 

This remark has respect to the proper treat- 
ment of all sins which are called '• organic," — 
those which are deeply interwoven with the 
elements of the social structure, as, for instance, 
idolatry or slavery. Time was when almost 
universally, throughout this country, men owned 
slavery to be a sin ; that is, a thing which is in 
itself a transgression of the law of righteousness. 
Scarcely anywhere could a man be heard to say, 
that either its commencement or its continuance 
was sanctioned by reason or scripture. Amidst the 
agitation of recent years, however, many leading 
men in the land have deemed the avowal of such 
a sentiment to be contrary to a safe policy, and 
have proclaimed slavery to be, not an entailed 
misfortune, but a righteous relation sanctioned by 
the Christian scriptures. Now, in this juncture, 
Divine Providence undoubtedly called the Chris- 
tian church in the slave-states to a great duty ; 
to proclaim, on the one hand, that she was averse 
to all fanatical violence, wrath, and strife ; and, on 
the other, that to her. Heaven had committed a 
pure and free Christianity, which teaches that 
" God has made of one blood all nations <^o z^—^" 



AND SLAVERY. 53 

upon the face of the earth," — that the men of 
Europe or America have no more right of own- 
ership in the flesh and blood of the children of 
Africa, than the Africans have in theirs ; and that, 
not power, or wealth, or color, can give to man a 
right of property in man. This testimony she 
should have held forth with a calm martyr-spirit, 
seeking nought by violence, but to overcome by 
the blood of the Lamb and the word of his testi- 
mony. But, alas ! to a great extent, her ministry 
and members have succumbed to the laws, the 
politics, the statesmanship, and the spirit of this 
world, — have altered the testimony of Christ's 
word, and have publicly declared that his religion 
sanctions a system of slavery. If the apostle 
John, who was inspired of old to warn the declin- 
ing churches of Asia, could descend from heaven 
with a special message to this portion of the 
American church, its "burden" and its tone 
would probably agree with those of this letter to 
Pergamos, saying, " I know where thou dwellest, 
even in the midst of a system which Satan has 
devised to grind your brethren with hard bondage. 
I know how little thou canst do to change the 
laws and customs of this people, and break the 
bands of oppression ; but I have a few things 
against thee, because -thou hast there them that 
hold the doctrine of the devil, saying that this sys- 
tem is from me^ and that it bears the sanction of 
your Lord and Master. Repent, or else I will 
come unto thee quickly, and will fight against 
thee with the sword of my mouth." 

Of such a spirit, we believe, would be the 

message sent to a portion of our American church, 

if the oracle of God should illuminate another 

Patmos. The man who, in the view of the civil 

6 



54 CHKISTIANITY AND SLAVERY. 

law, is regarded as a slaveholder, but who, in 
heart, abhors the system, testifies against it as 
unrighteous, and does what he can to bring it to 
an end, is guiltless, compared with him, either at 
the South or the North, who never owned a slave, 
but who says that Christianity sanctions slavery. 
The one is the unwilling victim of a system ; the 
other is the voluntary advocate of a principle, 
which, if true, fixes on Christianity all the guilt 
of the system itself. The one exerts an influence 
which tends to destroy the system ; the other, an 
influence which tends to perpetuate it. The one 
utters a testimony, however feeble, in harmony 
with the voice of the Bible ; the other muflles 
God's trumpet, so that it can pour forth no note 
of warning, but only gentle sounds, which soothe 
rather than alarm the conscience of the oppressor. 
As we have said before, the truths involved in 
this message proclaimed by the voice of inspira- 
tion, apply to the church's testimony respecting 
all organic sins whatsoever, — to all wrong cus- 
toms which have received the support of society. 
It will not do for a Christian, or an association of 
Christians, to say. We cannot alter them, and 
therefore yield to them. In many things we all 
may have been subjected to a false system, whose 
influence we have inhaled like a subtle atmo- 
sphere ; but at any rate we can testify against it ; 
we can hold forth the law of trutli and righteous- 
ness ; we can make known the word of God, 
" uncorrupt and pure ; " and thus, battling against 
one and another sin, may keep it from concealing 
its native vileness by enrobing itself in the au- 
thority of religion, and proudly wearing the sanc- 
tions of Christ, like stars in its crown of triumph. 

END. 



7w 



ONESIMUS: 

Or, the Apostolic Direction to Christian Masters, in 
reference to their Slaves. By Evangelicus. 

Price 25 cents. 

NOTICES OF THE PEESS. 

An eminent statesman of the South, in a communication to the 
publishers, in reference to the work, says : — " It is just and philo- 
sophical, free from fanaticism, and enlightened by the pure spirit of 
Christianity, as well as by correct general information on slaTery. 
It is the pious friend of both master and slave ; and this is wise 
beyond almost all Northern treatises." 

The author proceeds to compare American Slavery with that which 
occasioned the Apostle's directions to masters, and then to examine 
and enforce the directions themselves. He states in the preface, that 
his " Essay is not designed to subserve the interest of any party." 
He directs his remarks wholly to professing Christians. His opinion 
is, that the directions of the Apostle, duly carried out, would so 
modify the system of slavery as eventually to break it up. The tone 
and manner of the writer are kind and conciliatory.— iVcw York 
Baptist Advocate. 

It is written in an excellent spirit, with close logic, and severe 
perspicuity, and is evidently from a practised pen. Its plan, of 
course, is gradualism. Abolitionists will consider its capital fault 
to consist in its deducing from particular precepts (addressed to 
Christians when their condition precluded more direct action), the 
conduct suitable for a Christian community having discretionary 
power to sustain or dissolve the relation.— Zton's Herald, Boston. 

The views of the writer, whether approved or not, are worthy of 
being considered, and the style and manner cannot give offence to 
any. — Baptist Record, Philadelphia. 

Much valuable information is thrown together in a very condensed 
form, on the nature of slavery as it existed in the days of the Apostles. 
The author, having shown the particular points wherein slavery under 
the Roman government resembled, and wherein it differed from 
slavery as it exists in the United States, proceeds to examine the 
duties of masters in relation to their slaves. The work is evidently 
the production of a scholar, and he has clearly shown that if men 
would act in accordance with the Apostle's directions, slavery would 
cease to exist.— Christian Secretary, Hartford, Ct. 

This is a calm, scholar-like, and Christian examination of the 
teachings of the sacred writers, as to a most important class of duties. 
It states simply, and as far as we can judge, correctly, the leading 
principles of Christian duty on the subject of which it treats. — 
Princeton Revievj. 



S4 % 







•0^ .i 







"oK 



^ ^""^^ 



rAQ" 


















ip-n,. 






1^ ♦ 



<r<' 



'r \c,^^ : 




















^•^./\■ 




l^^,.^^"^ 



^v*^"*\.v 



.^^ 









WERT 
BOOKBINDING 

Grantville. Pa 








